Comments on: Gallup: 57% think media’s coverage of Palin is either fair or too positive

By: WasatchMan

WasatchMan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:42:04 +0000

Disgruntled Mittheads, maybe?

Leftards who are lying about being Republicans, duh. Smarten up, Allahpundit.

By: 91Veteran

91Veteran — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:43:27 +0000

Disgruntled ~~Mittheads~~, Paulbots maybe?

What I suspect.

By: Steve McCullough

Steve McCullough — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:20:58 +0000

What this poll actually illustrates is the power of propaganda. It is difficult for the average American to know what is true and what is not. Frightening.

By: Sultry Beauty

Sultry Beauty — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:16:51 +0000

Exit question: Who on earth are those 11 percenters among the GOP who think the coverage has been too positive? Disgruntled Mittheads, maybe?

Those would be Michael Savage and Rick Roberts listeners.

By: Janos Hunyadi

Janos Hunyadi — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:20:10 +0000

Allah actually did a very good job of disecting a very poorly-worded and ridiculously poorly-constructed poll: A Poll About Nothing.

The terminology was awkward and sloppy, making the results ( especially in light of the Gibson Gotcha ) meaningless

avert your eyes, move along, and forget it……..

By: whitetop

whitetop — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:12:34 +0000

There’s a woman who is actually married to Chevy Chase? Eww!

By: SuperCool

SuperCool — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:52:14 +0000

I figure they just polled San Francisco.

t.ferg on September 15, 2008 at 12:14 PM

I figured the bay area in general. The folks in Bearkley and Oakland would see this as fair…

By: spmat

spmat — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:42:49 +0000

Who on earth are those 11 percenters among the GOP who think the coverage has been too positive? Disgruntled Mittheads, maybe?

Uh, you? I noticed you couched this in terms of 57% thinking it was too positive or just right. You could just as easily couched it in terms of 69% thinking it was too negative or just right. Your commentary on Palin ever since her announcement has been decidedly guarded, bordering on ambivalent. You’ve done a yeoman’s work in combating the obvious smears and outright lies, but I can’t help detect a bit of distaste in your writing every time you have to mention her.

Whatever… It seems to me that you acceptance of her nomination extends only so far as she will be able to help Obama’s opponent win. Does the prospect of her being the new face of the GOP disgust you? If so, who would you rather be the GOP’s ideological standard-bearer?

By: petunia

petunia — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:31:55 +0000

Why do independents always score highest in “No Opinion”?

DarkCurrent on September 15, 2008 at 12:36 PM

Some of them just use the polls as sort their life line in Who Wants to be a Millionaire. They just see who gets the majority and they vote that way.

By: petunia

petunia — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:29:01 +0000

Too positive, my butt.

CNN can’t even air a special on Palin without getting some fat guy in a beard up there to regurgitate lies about banning books.

Ryan Gandy on September 15, 2008 at 1:10 PM

Not just book banning but the long debunked rumour that she favored teaching Creationism in schools is now conventional wisdom. They just say it and no one corrects them.

By: petunia

petunia — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:27:02 +0000

Hey as a disgruntled Mitthead… I think the coverage of Sarah Palin is disgusting! I truly don’t get how anyone could think it fair. How about let’s start a rumour that Michelle is not the true mother of Obama’s children and have every network send a crew to Kenya in order check out the rumours…. Stupid your new name is Media.

By: jparks1972

jparks1972 — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:22:56 +0000

Why would you single-out disgruntled mittheads? Why not disgruntled Hucka-bots or the Paul-estinians as others have suggested.

Maybe because the so-called Hucka-bots actually love Sarah Palin. Her and Bobby Jindal are the closest thing to Huckabee and thus, makes them very happy.

By: Domino

Domino — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:19:39 +0000

Disgruntled Mittheads, maybe?

Balderdash

By: Grafted

Grafted — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:11:23 +0000

Disgruntled Mittheads, maybe?
Ron Paultards.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 15, 2008 at 12:12 PM

My first thought as well.

By: bethany

bethany — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:10:38 +0000

Who on earth are those 11 percenters among the GOP who think the coverage has been too positive?

You’ve probably got the Ron Pautards, Mittheads, and a bunch of trophy wives who are jealous that Sarah Palin has a better hair stylist and pair of stiletto heels than they do. At least I know that if I wasn’t going to like her that would probably be the only reason I could think of. :)

By: Ryan Gandy

Ryan Gandy — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:10:32 +0000

Too positive, my butt.

CNN can’t even air a special on Palin without getting some fat guy in a beard up there to regurgitate lies about banning books.

By: jp

jp — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:07:37 +0000

speaking of Paultards, has he told the people in his district they shouldn’t get any Federal help and they should re-build themselves, that it was their fault/responsibility since they ‘chose’ to live so close to ocean?

in paultard land, its a choice to live where the oil industry centers logistically and from which feeds the nation Oil supplies.

By: indythinker

indythinker — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:01:16 +0000

The poll is biased.

Here is the question and possible responses:

In your view has the media’s coverage of Sarah Palin during the presidential campaign been…

– unfairly positive
– about right
– unfairly negative?

In fact, the poll shows 33% of Americans think the coverage has been unfairly negative, while only 16% of Americans think the coverage has been unfairly positive. A total of 36% of Americans think the coverage has been down the middle, or fair or “about right”.

This poll is not one to worry about. It shows that more and more Americans are rejecting the media filter and are focusing on the candidates for who they are, which is what we want.

By: Steve Z

Steve Z — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:00:32 +0000

Given the internals of this poll, it’s very misleading to headline this as “57% think media coverage is fair or too positive”. The “fair” way to headline this is: “Americans think Media Coverage of Palin is Too Negative by 33-21%”.

The headline gives the impression that the majority think that press coverage of Palin is too positive, but the actual poll numbers show that more people think it’s too negative than too positive.

By: try again later

try again later — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:00:18 +0000

Gallup:…..What planet are you polling?
Perhaps you should turn on your damn TV, this is a perfect example why these polls are total b/s.

By: NellE

NellE — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:58:45 +0000

saw some

By: NellE

NellE — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:56:41 +0000

Maybe most people some some of the biographical coverage on Gov. Palin on Fox, and even some of the other networks, and were satisfied that they got to know her well enough. Maybe they’re feeling satisfied that the drive-bys can’t pull the ol’ wool completely over their eyes anymore.

By: pilamaye

pilamaye — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:48:58 +0000

And they expect the rest of us to believe this as the gospel truth?

I don’t think so!

Right now, I don’t even trust the MSM to report the weather!

By: Jim Treacher

Jim Treacher — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:41:02 +0000

So if McCain’s sudden popularity isn’t due to a backlash against the blatant anti-Palin smear campaign… it must mean there’s something positive about the McCain/Palin ticket that people are responding to.

Sounds good to me, Gallup!

By: Dr.Cwac.Cwac

Dr.Cwac.Cwac — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:37:04 +0000

I hope this poll includes all 57 states!

canopfor on September 15, 2008 at 12:23 PM

And asthmatic kids on breathalyzers.